What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Jacob]

The thing you have to remember about pensions is that the beneficiary contributes to them as well.

So look - it would be pretty hard to lose a job you've had for 20 years, but hopefully you can get a new one.

But to lose a job you've had for 20 years - but to also lose the 20 years of savings you were counting on to retire with?  You can get a new job, but you can't ever make up for those 20 years.

Fair.

[Berkut]

I think it's *possible*.

Maybe. Not extremely optimistic, but I also acknowledge that some places may have more open culture about this sort of reform.

"Defund the police" is done as a useful slogan.

Of course it is. This goes back to the endless discussion we are having: for some, the language of activists is always unhelpful, and they would rather spend considerable amount of time and energy distancing themselves from it, for fear of being, *gasp* too far left. The people who endlessly complain the left eats its own always seem to want to secure a seat at the table.

I don't give a shit if a slogan becomes discredited - but I do care if it succeeds in pushing these ideas to the forefront, and would rather that more time was spent by people who sympathize with the goal in pushing the sprit of the slogan than simply assert themselves as good centrist afraid of those horrible woke people. People like Caville can lecture about message discipline, but the message discipline they always favor is one that is lab-grown through study groups and weaponized in backroom deals. The ideas they say are popular in the country never appeared magically, but through grassroot work and, yes, the horrible, terrible language of activists. 

This is kind of bullshit.

You are disparaging the motives, and basically calling people like myself and DG and Carville liars.

You are claiming that my objection is not based on me actually wanting to fucking win (which is what I claim), but rather because I am oh so anxious to be seen as a "centrist", like my ego is terrified of being seen as woke enough to count as the bad ass Bernie Bros and their super awesome brave courage at calling things all "real".

You are wrong. I have a pretty damn good idea why I think the way I do, and you might not agree with me, but if you wonder why I make the arguments I make, you can just ask me - I am not terribly shy about my views, and am not hiding my true fear of being seen as too lefty.

I think language matters when it comes to convincing people to vote for your side. And language that only specifically appeals to those you have already convinced is just dumb. I don't know what "lab grown" or "weaponized in back room deals" even means.

And no, I do NOT think the "ideas" behind "defund the police" came from the language "Defund the police!". Language follows ideas, and well crafted language drives the adoption of those ideas. Really well crafted language (Gasp!) even drives the adoption of those ideas OUTSIDE the originators idea bubbles! Poorly crafter language fails, and just makes your ideas sound crazy to the people they are trying to actually convince.

This is NOT a debate about policy, at least not directly.

And yes...the people who complain about how the left "eats its own" or fails to execute politics well, yes...they DO in fact want a seat at the progressive table. You know why?

Because they are progressives as well, and want those ideas to win, not just make them feel like they are members of the elite club of right thinkers. And they recognize that the lefty ivory towers are nice and comfy for those living in them, but most people don't live in them, and in a democracy, "most" people are kind of the point when it comes to well executed elections. And in a democracy like we have in the US, where we *already* have a problem with a minority on the right ruling over the majority, and the only way to fix that is to win more elections, then yes - language does matter.

[The Brain]

Like in any operation, when it comes to safety and security people don't have to like it. They just have to do as they're told.

Police forces don't exist for the sake of police officers, they exist to do a job. If you don't want to do that job then work somewhere else. Please, because the force will be better off without you.

My instinct, my personality, and my understanding of people say that positive measures are awesome. But you must never be afraid to act very firmly when it comes to unacceptable behavior.

[grumbler]

I think it's *possible*.

Maybe. Not extremely optimistic, but I also acknowledge that some places may have more open culture about this sort of reform.

"Defund the police" is done as a useful slogan.

Of course it is. This goes back to the endless discussion we are having: for some, the language of activists is always unhelpful, and they would rather spend considerable amount of time and energy distancing themselves from it, for fear of being, *gasp* too far left. The people who endlessly complain the left eats its own always seem to want to secure a seat at the table.

I don't give a shit if a slogan becomes discredited - but I do care if it succeeds in pushing these ideas to the forefront, and would rather that more time was spent by people who sympathize with the goal in pushing the sprit of the slogan than simply assert themselves as good centrist afraid of those horrible woke people. People like Caville can lecture about message discipline, but the message discipline they always favor is one that is lab-grown through study groups and weaponized in backroom deals. The ideas they say are popular in the country never appeared magically, but through grassroot work and, yes, the horrible, terrible language of activists. 

This is kind of bullshit.

You are disparaging the motives, and basically calling people like myself and DG and Carville liars.

You are claiming that my objection is not based on me actually wanting to fucking win (which is what I claim), but rather because I am oh so anxious to be seen as a "centrist", like my ego is terrified of being seen as woke enough to count as the bad ass Bernie Bros and their super awesome brave courage at calling things all "real".

You are wrong. I have a pretty damn good idea why I think the way I do, and you might not agree with me, but if you wonder why I make the arguments I make, you can just ask me - I am not terribly shy about my views, and am not hiding my true fear of being seen as too lefty.

I think language matters when it comes to convincing people to vote for your side. And language that only specifically appeals to those you have already convinced is just dumb. I don't know what "lab grown" or "weaponized in back room deals" even means.

And no, I do NOT think the "ideas" behind "defund the police" came from the language "Defund the police!". Language follows ideas, and well crafted language drives the adoption of those ideas. Really well crafted language (Gasp!) even drives the adoption of those ideas OUTSIDE the originators idea bubbles! Poorly crafter language fails, and just makes your ideas sound crazy to the people they are trying to actually convince.

This is NOT a debate about policy, at least not directly.

And yes...the people who complain about how the left "eats its own" or fails to execute politics well, yes...they DO in fact want a seat at the progressive table. You know why?

Because they are progressives as well, and want those ideas to win, not just make them feel like they are members of the elite club of right thinkers. And they recognize that the lefty ivory towers are nice and comfy for those living in them, but most people don't live in them, and in a democracy, "most" people are kind of the point when it comes to well executed elections. And in a democracy like we have in the US, where we *already* have a problem with a minority on the right ruling over the majority, and the only way to fix that is to win more elections, then yes - language does matter.

You'll never convince the True Believers.  You are either a Purple Drazi like themselves or a Green Drazi.  It doesn't matter the actual color of your sash; if it's not purple, they only see green.

[DGuller]

This goes back to the endless discussion we are having: for some, the language of activists is always unhelpful, and they would rather spend considerable amount of time and energy distancing themselves from it, for fear of being, *gasp* too far left.

Have you ever entertained the notion that maybe some people on the left just plain disagree with what is understood to be woke left?  Maybe they don't view woke left as a good idea taken too far, maybe they view it as a bad idea taken too far. 

I'm on the left because the left approaches problems with critical thinking, and with understanding that nuance exists and that it is helpful to recognize it.  I don't see those qualities on the woke left.  The fact that the woke left happens to be in my political tent is certainly an annoyance and a complication, but it's an annoyance because they don't stand for what I stand for, not because I'm too chicken to take it as far as they bravely take it.

[garbon]

It is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.

[Berkut]

It is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.

Now that is fucking irony right there.

[DGuller]

It is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.

I'm going to tip my hat to you, I couldn't have managed to condense so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence of normal length.

[Berkut]

It is interesting how 'woke' has now been slotted in by white people where 'playing the race card' used to sit.

I'm going to tip my hat to you, I couldn't have managed to condense so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence of normal length.

Racist.

[Jacob]

I'm going to tip my hat to you, I couldn't have managed to condense so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence of normal length.

I'd love for you to explain. I have a few assumptions, but they don't all align and I don't want to go on the wrong one.

[DGuller]

I'm going to tip my hat to you, I couldn't have managed to condense so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence of normal length.

I'd love for you to explain. I have a few assumptions, but they don't all align and I don't want to go on the wrong one.

Explain what?

[Jacob]

Explain what?

Your strong reaction to garbon's comment about "woke" having slotted into how white people previously used "playing the race card."

Personally I can see arguments of how both of those terms are or have been used in a similar fashion. I mean, digging into them a bit I'd say there's probably some nuance differences here and there, and also occasions where they have different meanings or functions in a conversation, but I can also see how it's used as a way to dismiss folks by saying "what you're saying is disingenuous/ self-serving/ counter-productive/ too militant/ shuts down conversation by making it about race at the wrong time/ et. al.". But, like, even if garbon is incorrect I'm missing how it "condenses so much of what is wrong with woke culture into a single sentence".

Possibly because I'm too woke myself, I dunno.

[Sheilbh]

I don't know about the US - but in the UK it is exclusively used by its critics which is normally an indicator that a term isn't useful it just means "I don't like this". It's a bit like "neo-liberal" on the left. They may both have meanings but I think they're kind of debased and detached from them.

[Jacob]

I don't know about the US - but in the UK it is exclusively used by its critics which is normally an indicator that a term isn't useful it just means "I don't like this". It's a bit like "neo-liberal" on the left. They may both have meanings but I think they're kind of debased and detached from them.

Yeah, I was initially a bit surprised by the way "woke" is used on languish by reasonable centrists exactly the same way it's used by the American right.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know about the US - but in the UK it is exclusively used by its critics which is normally an indicator that a term isn't useful it just means "I don't like this". It's a bit like "neo-liberal" on the left. They may both have meanings but I think they're kind of debased and detached from them.

Neo-liberal to me just means empathetic but cognizant of the harsh realities of market forces.  "The Washington Consensus" is essentially neo-liberalism. 

Perhaps the UK is different than the US is because a) your woke people are not quite as strident, b) your reasonable centrists are more intimidated or fewer in number, or c) a combination.

Jake, to take a crack at explaining DGulller's post, I think it has to do with the conflict between critical thinking and ideology/faith.  You and I can look at these various police videos and have a back and forth about which police actions were justified and which were not.  I can acknowledge the vallidty of your points, even if my position remains unchanged.  Hopefullly the same is true for you.  Woke people cannot do this because their position is based on a belief system, a belief system that divides the world into good and evil, and therefore anyone who questions or critiques a particular judgement or conclusion is by definition evil.